Tempers flared at today's committee of the whole meeting as Wake County school board members argued over a resolution that would be used to apply for a federal magnet schools grant.
With the recent adoption of the community schools resolution, the board needs to adopt a voluntary desegregation plan to apply for the grant. If successful, Wake could get up to $12 million in federal dollars to jumpstart the district's three newest magnet schools - Smith and Brentwood elementary schools and Millbrook High.
Members of the board majority said the resolution complies with the grant application guidelines. But members of the board minority accused the majority of paying lip service to diversity just to get grant money.
The resolution, which has been added to today's meeting agenda, says the district is "committed to provide diverse settings for education that promote an understanding and appreciation of cultural differences."
The resolution then incorporates wording from the community schools directive, such as the timeframes for developing the new assignment system and maintaining magnet schools as viable options for families.
"The Community-Based assignment model will also include an evaluation component to provide regular review of each zone attendance area in an effort to reduce and/or prevent minority group isolation," according to the resolution.
It then ends with the resolution saying the school board "reaffirms the importance of magnet schools in WCPSS as a tool for voluntary desegregation."
School board member John Tedesco said there's a false perspective in the community that people who value community schools don’t support diversity.
Minority members repeatedly accused the majority of including the wording in the resolution about diversity and desegregation solely to get grant money. They brought up how the majority had voted 5-4 on March 23 against an amendment to say that the new system would not lead to segregated schools.
"I believe this is wordsmithing to get the money," said board member Anne McLaurin.
But Tedesco and board member Debra Goldman said the amendment was too vague in not setting parameters on what would be considered segregation.
Tedesco said the amendment was "political rhetoric" and that community zones can go hand and hand with diversity. But McLaurin didn't buy that statement.
"It’s like waiting for Santa Claus," McLaurin said of the community zone model. "If there was a plan, we’d see it on the table.”
McLaurin said she hasn't seen any community zone models that don't lead to resegregation.
UPDATE
THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE USUAL 5-4 VOTE AFTER A MOTION TO SEND IT TO COMMITEE WAS REJECTED BY THE SAME 5-4 COALITION.
Comments
neighborhoods and communities, needs and diversity
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 12:04 — SDR256Has anyone noticed that the message of this board, and what they were voted in on has not changed and yet they are continually accused of making 'new news'? It has been so very convenient for those who are more interested in villification to accuse the board of a strict neighborhood schools assignment direction, even when very early on they were talking about community schools. Much of the public dialog now reflects melodramatic hand wringing over what will happen when 'we all go to a draconian neighborhood schools model'. That's a convenient, extreme and political position. And its fighting the wind. I've never understood this board to be going to a strictly 'closest school to you' model. I've understood that they would create a model that would use proximity, stability and choice as more priority considerations and see what best could come of that - using academics and achievement of students as the final yardstick.
Community schools is a leading edge model promoted by the Obama administration, so how this can be labeled a Republican ploy I have no idea. WSCA very carefully worded our objectives to include neighborhood schools within a community based model, because that's what the majority of our members wanted to support. We supported innovative solutions and actively sought them out. Very early last year we found some articles written by Joel Klein and Rev. Al Sharpton about EEP and Community based schools. These gentlemen were - believe it or not - accused of being racist (shows how hollow this term really is now), and we all joked privately that it simply sounded to us like Mr. Klein and Rev Sharpton had been attending WSCA meetings. :) SHHHHHH don't tell our Republican puppetmasters that though! Lord, our soup train might cease! (lol!)
The four new members and Ron all supported that direction as well, so we supported them. WSCA in our own discussions came to the conclusion that we would envision a community based model that would include neighborhood schools, but not be limited to neighborhood schools. It might, depending on what the community needed, include magnets or charters or special policies based on the community. I'm not on that committee, but this proposal last night doesn't surprise me based on discussions last year that seem to have continued to percolate.
The other political football of neighborhood schools is just politics taking an extreme position for the benefit of politics, not solutions. WSCA has always expected that the community based system would, as presented here, offer some kind of 'needs-based' solution as part of the community model. -----(The reason I use the term 'needs-based' is because I think the term 'diversity' is very muddy in what people believe it is, as illustrated by the posts below regarding the grant submission. What is "minority group isolation"? Race based or economically based from the feds perspective? And what percentage? I would hope that few would argue that we as a society need to figure out how to address critical needs as they appear - using academic achievement of students as the final yardstick. And really work towards solutions, not just pay lip service as has been done). ---- It seems to me that the fact that 'diversity' as a priority is being discussed so early, along with the main tenets of the community based assignment model, should be seen as a hopeful sign for those who value diversity as much as academics, stability and proximity.
Its hypocritical and brittle of long term diversity supporters like Morrison to refuse to look at any other wording or attempt at diversity other than the beloved and sacred Policy 6200 - which has failed in its goals. Diversity doesn't 'belong' to 'them', Policy 6200 isn't the only way to achieve this. Can't they consider some way it could evolve and improve? Why can't the wording of a future direction be changed to be clearer, crisper, more solution oriented, more focused on achievement for students instead of schools, and more livable for the families of Wake County without being suspect?
Student Achievement
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 12:13 — Dove314If student achievement is so important, for me, it comes back to a few things --
1. Why was reassignment put ahead of student achievement? Student assignment effects won't be felt until 2013-2014 school year at the earliest.
2. Why has the Student Achievement Committee met once out of 6 scheduled meetings and why have they already cancelled their meeting scheduled for the end of April? If it is important, why weren't the meetings rescheduled?
3. Why has the ED Student Performance Task Force not yet even scheduled a meeting?
I truly believe it is time to stop portraying the change to Community Based Schools as having an impact on Student Achievement in the next 24 months.
Dunno
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 13:56 — SDR256I can't answer your questions as I'm not on any of these committees. All I can say is that it was through the extreme assignment focus of the previous board, and their LACK of focus on student achievement that we came to be where we are - families stretched to the brink for an assignment policy that pretented to help disadvantaged children but did not.
I have to say I am encouraged to hear the public dialog, including your post here, ask for more attention to student achievement and to recognize that as a priority. As of only six months ago there was a very strong contingent who believed that we should pursue 'diversity at all costs.'
My preference would be academic achievment above all, with diversity considered as a component but not the entire end goal. (that said, my point about the muddiness of the term 'diversity' still applies. I don't think we can pretend that a universally agreed-to definition of the term 'diversity' exists for this context)
Interesting.
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:01 — Apexter"But members of the board minority accused the majority of paying lip service to diversity just to get grant money."
Interesting. The old board (and the new board minority) never seemed to have any difficulty paying lip service to diversity as long as it provided nearby magnet schools for most Raleigh residents and reduced poverty levels in Raleigh schools, with no regard for the fact that it was dramatically increasing poverty levels in a number of schools outside the beltline.
I disagree. They
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 05:46 — magnetParentI disagree. They recognized the struggle with some of the schools poverty levels increasing, which is why they made Brentwood, Smith ES and Millbrook HS new magnet schools, and demagnetized Broughton and Daniels. But this takes time and grant money to do.
I think the fact that it
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:50 — jenmanI think the fact that it took brentwood and SMith getting close to 80% F&R before anything was done very telling. At the same time, we've got several ITB magnets located in higher income neighborhood with F&Rs in the 20s and low to mid 30s. There is no ITB school (except Dillard) that is not either a magnet, below 40% or both.
The focus over the years absolutely has been on keeping central Raleigh schools attractive while largely ignoring everybody else. There's no way in heck that WCPSS would let an ITB school on the 'right' side of US1 get close to 40% without being a magnet. WCPSS, WEP & FOWC have known for a long time that they had to keep ITB happy in order to maintain support for the school system. I honestly do not think that the rest of us mattered much at all. Rim schools, Garner, Eastern Wake are invisible and the rest of us are a dime a dozen. It was a sad day when I came to this realization.
Clarification
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 22:18 — TrailerParkGirlDillard is NOT an ITB school. It is just OTB and a Rim school of which many are not a magnet and > 40%. Therefore, there is no ITB school that is not either a magnet, below 40% or both.
I usually get corrected by
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:09 — jenmanI usually get corrected by somebody here when I say that no ITB school is not a magnet, <40% or both. Am I thinking of the wrong school? There's some school that's just barely inside the beltline so technically its ITB. Maybe whoever it is that usually corrects me (in a nice way) will come along and respond. :-)
Lacy?
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:32 — TrailerParkGirlIs it Lacy? I'm pretty sure that's just ITB.
What does Durham's voluntary
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:23 — jenmanWhat does Durham's voluntary desegregation piece say? Doesn't Guilford Cty have magnets as well? What about CMS or Chicago? How do they get magnet grants without a diversity policy? It can obviously be done.
From what Dove posted below,
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 07:52 — carson79From what Dove posted below, Durham and CMS do NOT get grant $$.
From what Dove posted below,
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:39 — jenmanFrom what Dove posted below, Durham and CMS do NOT get grant $$.
They did not get grant money in 2007. Doesn't mean that they don't receive grant money or can't receive grant money. It may mean that they didn't apply in 2007.
From WCPSS:
Grant Eligibility:
Since 1985 we have been awarded $36 Million in grants.
Does Guilford get any of the
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 07:28 — carson79Does Guilford get any of the grant $$? Their "magnet" don't actually attract anyone and they have pretty extreme race isolation so I don't think they should be benefiting from the grant money. CMS has race isolation as well, do they get the grant $? Same with Durham county schools. Is it by specific school?
I'm not even sure all those districts you named don't have a diversity policy, are you? I think they may just not follow it? Or actually prioritize diversity in assignment?
MSAP website
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 07:40 — Dove314Lists the following 2007 awards to NC as:
North Carolina
Cumberland County Schools — $1,731,967
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Guilford County Schools — $1,509,072
Greensboro, North Carolina
Wake County Public School System — $3,582,151
Raleigh, North Carolina
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools — $1,665,768
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Magnet Schools of America honored the following in Guilford:
Academics
Theme: Advanced Academics
Ok, thanks! I'm familiar
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 07:51 — carson79Ok, thanks! I'm familiar with Weaver and Early College - Weaver used to be used to provide advanced classes that there wasn't enough demand for at other schools - like computer science was offered there and kids that went to Northwest Guilford, etc would go to Weaver just for that class.
So their other magnets did not get any $$?
I would have to dig deeper in but I don't know how Early College could be reducing race isolation at all where it's located.
I guess you just have to say you want to reduce race isolation, but if you don't actually get results or follow through they don't yank your grant $?
Funded schools.
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 09:49 — Dove314I'm sure the grant goes to many schools within Guilford but the ones above were the ones given the honors.
I don't know for sure, but I
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 09:56 — magnetParentI don't know for sure, but I think that those funds have to go directly to the schools which they were awarded. I believe that there is an audit system in place to ensure that. The magnet staff said something about that in an earlier meeting. If they don't use the funds, they have to give it back.
It could, however, free up other monies to use in the other schools.
I think that the honors are
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:55 — jenmanI think that the honors are different from the actual grants. We've got schools that have been honored in recent years that haven't been part of a grant that year.
Are you talking about
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:59 — magnetParentAre you talking about awards? I'm not sure what you mean by honors... I was talking about the grant awards through the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.
Dove's post listed school
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 22:43 — jenmanDove's post listed school districts in NC that got grant awards from MSAP and honors from Magnet Schools of America. The info on the school districts didn't list individual schools.
These 3 districts are listed as getting awards in 2004:
Bladen County Schools
Elizabethtown, North Carolina
Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education
Charlotte, North Carolina
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Here is
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 20:36 — TrailerParkGirlHere is what I find confusing - when you read the magnet information of the department of ED site, it focuses on minority group isolation, yet Bugg was 77% A-A last year and Brentwood was 78% ED (so Morrison was incorrect tonight when she said we have none >75%, also we have a number of schools that are <25% white), so I'm left confused.
I found some districts that use neither race nor SES, rather they focus on the fact that the special magnet programs attract a diverse pool of applicants, thereby voluntarily creating a diverse school. Also, the programs are supposed to provide access to challenging academic content. (What about our schools within schools issue?)
www2.ed.gov/programs/magnet/index.html
I think the shifting sand interim final rule relates to some court decisions (I believe one court found that district could not use race as a tiebreaker in determining magnet acceptance.)
Minorities
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 11:11 — SDR256Really good points discussed below. I guess the crux of it is what does the grant assume is "minority group isolation"? Traditionally in the US, 'minorities' has meant race. And yes, race has been deemed illegal to use for school assignments, so SES was used. But are ED children a minority? Seems like in this economy they may soon be a majority. What IS the grant process is doing to determine diversity? Interesting potential scenarios here.
I am looking at the report
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:02 — magnetParentI am looking at the report from 2009-2010 in the demographics section of WCPSS web page and it lists Bugg Elem at 54.7%.
Brentwood just became a magnet school this year (I think, maybe last year) so it will take a little while to get the F&R at a decent level. (they have 40 magnet students total this year).
The
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:54 — TrailerParkGirlThe 54.7% is the F&R%. I was speaking to race/ethnicity, not SES. If you look at the race/ethnicity report, Bugg (for 2009-10) is 78.3% black/A-A. Unless things have changed more than I realize, when people refer to "minority" group, they generally mean race/ethnicity.
Is "F&R Lunch" officially considered a "minority" group?
I think it is for the
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 22:20 — danofncI think it is for the purposes of school assignment. I think the Supreme Court ruled that race can't be used.
**by the way...I know the back to back "I think" sentences can sound like I'm trying to be a smart---, but I'm not. I think the first thing, because I think the second. Either or both of my thoughts could be wrong.
I think
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 00:59 — TrailerParkGirlI didn't take it that you were trying to be smart---.
While WCPSS has used F&R for that purpose, that is not common practice. However, you are correct about court rulings, although I think technically ruling said race can be used in narrow circumstances (can't remember the exact wording.) There have actually been multiple rulings, which is why the magnet grant stuff is shifting sand. One of the decisions related to Seattle (has zones and a magnet program actually, but the issue arose when the district used race as a tiebreaker in acceptance decisions.)
I think that while race cannot be used for assignment that does not preclude the creation of voluntary mechanisms to achieve diversity as long as race is not used as a criteria in determining access. If you read up on magnets on the department of Education site, reduction of race isolation is mentioned as a goal. In other words, if you create a magnet program that is fairly attractive to applicants of all races with the goal of reduction in race isolation and you accept at random, then in theory you should have a diverse school without having used race in determining assignment. Does that make sense? Then the focus becomes creating attraction to a well-rounded group of applicants.
if you create a magnet
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 07:24 — carson79if you create a magnet program that is fairly attractive to applicants
of all races with the goal of reduction in race isolation
I think this is what they are talking about when people say "magnet in name only."
magnetparent--TPG was
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:52 — jenmanmagnetparent--TPG was listing the African Amercian% of Bugg. I think you looked up the F&R%.
You are right, I misread.
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 22:00 — magnetParentYou are right, I misread. But they don't/can't measure diversity by race anymore.
Shifting sand
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 20:11 — TrailerParkGirlNote it says interim final, so not sure how much final rule would be different.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 280
RIN 1855-AA07
[Docket ID ED-2010-OII-0003]
Magnet Schools Assistance Program
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations governing the Magnet
Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) to provide greater flexibility to
school districts designing MSAP programs for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
grant competition announced in a notice inviting applications for new
awards published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. These
changes remove provisions in the regulations that require districts to
use binary racial classifications and prohibit the creation of magnet
schools that result in minority group enrollments in magnet and feeder
schools exceeding the district-wide average of minority group students.
This new flexibility is necessary to permit school districts interested
in receiving funds under this program to determine how best to meet
program requirements while also taking into account intervening Supreme
Court case law, including the Court's decision in Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School District No 1 et al., 551 U.S. 701
(2007) (Parents Involved).
DATES: These regulations are effective March 4, 2010.
3 year cycles?
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 12:16 — Dove314TPG -- am I reading correctly that MSAP awards new grants on a 3 year cycle?
2004, 2007, and now new grants to be awarded in 2010 with the next opportunity for MSAP grants to be in 2013?
What poor timing on the new
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 12:54 — user12345What poor timing on the new member's part ... they could have gutted diversity over the summer after submitting their grant application.
Talk to TPG
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:34 — Dove314The MSAP requirements are shifting sand right now and may end up on the Secretary's desk for final approval.
I think their concern is
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:16 — ncellagatorI think their concern is about that truthful documentation is submitted that reflects the policy that will be in use during the time funds are allotted for use. What if the school system can't send back supportive documentation for the follow up part of the grant? It wouldn't take much research on the grantor side to research the limbo the board is currently operating under. The school system can not afford to lose this money; without it the schools listed will need funding for other sources of income to provide for the program.
MSAP
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:18 — Dove314What a surprise -- the usual 5 to 4 vote on this one. Predict it will be an identical vote in two weeks without any change to or discussion of the resolution. Given these are all public proceedings fully available to the MSAP, it will be intriguing to see if the MSAP will award the grant(s) or not.
I agree with Tedesco &
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 17:54 — jenmanI agree with Tedesco & Goldman about Morrison's 'resegregation' amendment. It was vague and pointless. We already have schools that are considered racially segregated by the standard definitions. What definition was Morrison wanting to use? What definition has been used prior to the new resolution? What's been done to correct the already segregated schools that we have?
Its like Keith Sutton's amendment to keep proximity, community and diversity in the resolution. He said that he thought it was a compromise and could keep everybody happy by valuing all three of those components. I think that he had great intentions, but without placing a priority on any of the three components we have exactly what we've got now. A BOE that refuses to place priorities and then leaves it up to Growth Management to make the value judgments. That's how we've ended up with 18 mile base assignments and the 'comparable schools' policy.
These guys just continue to
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 17:34 — user12345These guys just continue to piss away money
I agree
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:01 — Duhhuh666How can Hill, Morrison, McLaurin and Sutton not support this. They want to throw away a 12 million dollar grant. Like User said they are pi**ing money away.
They may not want to lie and
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:29 — user12345They may not want to lie and say something that is untrue. I say everyone voted what they thought was right and if the goverment is dumb enough to believe it maybe we should take the money until they come to check.
Agreed.
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:03 — raleighlauraAnd I think we could swing a voluntary plan. All those folks who want their kids to be on the bus for an hour each way could sign up, and we could do central drop offs and pick ups. Kinda like express bussing for magnets now.
Please save the
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 18:47 — Duhhuh666Please save the grandstanding...they (Hill et al) have turned the diversity program into a political football, this is political theater for them and nothing more. And if 90+ percent of schools do not bus for diversity, how do they get the grant? Stop using emotion and try logic for a change.
Extremes
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 11:16 — SDR256I agree. Just because the flag of Policy 6200 is no longer waving doesn't mean that this board doesn't have a GREAT chance of implementing a diversity policy that is much clearer, achievable and livable for Wake County families - within the context of community based schools.
Keung-Can you research how
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 16:59 — ncellagatorKeung-Can you research how the Board is legally able to use the resolution they passed to influence the current assignment policy that requires a 2/3 change. To my knowledge no change has been made to that policy but the board majority continues to cite the "zone plan" for justification in assigning/not assigning nodes. Just wanting clarification as it seems to me that is the missing piece of the puzzle. Today they are carefully wording a document to secure money on a policy that seems to be headed out the door. Very questionable work indeed.
So...
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:12 — Bob_SconceIt would be helpful if you indicated WHY you thought passing a resolution to "influence the current assignment policy" requires a 2/3 vote. It seems to me that if that were the case, the minority would be screaming about it.
There was an op-ed a few weeks ago that misinterpreted part of the board's rules of order as requiring this, but that view was just thoroughly wrong -- it took a section of board rules that said you needed 2/3ds to rescind a *motion* and read it to say that you needed 2/3ds to rescind anything.
I thought Ms. Majestic
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 21:26 — DrActualFactualI thought Ms. Majestic addressed the 2/3rds issue in a discussion at the board meeting stating that it was not the operating practice of the previous boards to require a 2/3rds vote and that if they went back to do so in this case that may set a precedent for handling all other similar issues in the same manner (which would be cumbersome.) This is likely a very clumsy rephrasing of her opinion but she did address/advise on this matter at the board meeting.
Yes, she did explain it thoroughly and clearly.
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 22:12 — petehsHer explanation made perfect sense, even to a layperson such as myself when it comes to legal matters.
"if they went back to do so in this case that may set a precedent for
handling all other similar issues in the same manner (which would be
cumbersome.)"
Not only would it be cumbersome, but it would be flat out wrong to make such a change just for this resolution when it has "never" been required in past years on the BOE.